What do you mean by "false reputation for the researcher"? - To me, open access makes research more easily available to all researchers. You may call this "democratization", although this term seems not to describe it exactly. The disadvantage is that open access often means higher costs for authors or their institutions, which is a problem for many - see https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_impact_of_high_article_processing_charges_on_research_publication_activities_in_low_and_middle_income_countries . See also these general discussions on open access:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-a-open-access-journal-How-can-we-recognize-it-and-what-are-the-benefits-to-publish-a-journal-in-it

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Free_science_What_do_you_think_about_paying_to_read_a_scientific_article_even_though_you_know_that_its_authors_dont_get_paid_for_it

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_all_scientific_research_be_made_open_access

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Open_access_free_of_charge_should_we_change_the_roles_of_publishing

Regarding the question of whether open access manufactures false reputation for the researcher, should academic reputation only be measured in terms of how well research is received by peers. shouldn't popular acclaim count as well?

Personally, I distinguish mainly four categories of scientific journals. (1) subscription and non-open access journals (2) hybrid journals (Subscription or open access to reading), (3) completely free open access journals (to publish and to read), (4) exclusively open access journals ( the author pays to be published in open access, he has no other choice). In general there are no publication fees for author in the three first categories. However, there are some journals where the author pays various additional fees.

To answer Mr Wolfgang R. Dick 's question, I used the term "false reputation" when referring to predatory journals. Indeed, all predatory journals are open access. If you publish a lot of mediocre articles in predatory journals (where the reviewing is a simple formality) you are going to have a lot of publications and people will tend to believe that you are a good researcher when in reality you could not publish as many articles otherwise.

To Halil Halil

In absolute terms, no index can measure the "real intrinsic value" of a researcher.The scientific value of a researcher is in fact a subjective notion.

But this is not a reason to say that all researchers are of "equal value". The recruitment or funding of researchers must be done on a "basis" to be productive.

On the other hand, trying to establish a "false reputation" is also not a good thing.

For common people, very specialized research is uncomprehensible and cannot be debated from a scientific point of view.

Hi Dr B. Mohammed-Azizi .

It depends on the journal itself. Sometimes it manufacture false reputation for the researcher.

Regarding the remark made by Mr.Wolfgang R. Dick who affirms that what is interesting in open access is the fact of putting its publication in free reading for others. In this case, all you have to do is put your paper in ARXIV and everyone can read you without paying. In addition, the publication is completely free for the author. You will tell me that in ARXIV there is no peer review. I will answer you the reviewing is really serious only in renowned journals. which is not the case with "predatory" open access.

From Robert E Bartholomew in:

Article Science for Sale: the rise of predatory journals

"A new threat has emerged to the integrity of academic publishing: predatory journals. These unscrupulous publishers are exploiting the open-access (OA) model by corrupting the peer-review process, which is often absent or minimal. Their motivation is the procurement of evaluation and publication fees, which in the absence of traditional subscription rates are necessary to cover operating costs. Some claim to assess submissions within 72 h and digitally publish them upon acceptance and receipt of the fee. If the peer-review process were only that simple! While most medical professionals keep abreast of their fields by consulting a collection of established journals in their specialties, the existence of a large body of essentially unevaluated material in dubious OA journals is cause for concern.

While many predatory publications would be easily recognised as such by most in their respective professions, some are highly sophisticated and operate websites that mirror prominent mainstream journals. Even experienced scientists have been duped into joining the editorial boards of bogus journals, or submitting articles, only to realise their mistake after noticing irregularities and being asked to pay hefty publication fees......;;

Read more in:

Article Science for Sale: the rise of predatory journals

In fact, predatory journals don't steal from authors. The latter voluntarily agree to pay and for many of them this ensures them "a promotion" a few shares. There is therefore fully assured agreement on both sides. We must therefore stop saying that the author is a "prey" and that the journal is a predator. It suffices, moreover, to improve the quality of reviewers and to be "well" indexed for open access journal to become honorable (What some newspapers have achieved). Moreover, large groups of publishers are increasingly using this process (mandatory Open access).

Sorry for my English. The open access payment method, from one point of view, does not democratize research, but rather has different functions such as promoting the author (s) and seeking a projection of citations and academic presence. It is true that it facilitates the free retrieval of articles but we must remember that depending on the specialization of the journal and the article, it will have queries. The author's reputation does not enter this line, but his visibility does, because the more downloads his citation may increase and the more if it is in open access worldwide, it causes that there are few articles to which researchers can access. Therefore, the reputation increases, but it is not false, it is due to the economic process that has to be high costs of publication in Open Access, only those who can pay them will have these opportunities to enter more directly into the community of their specialization, unlike of those who publish in a traditional way.

Its depends on the journal, journals that publish open access with no fees are doing a great job, but journals that publish open access with fees (usually enormous fees) are just doing business, they dont care about research or the reputation of researchers, as long as the money keeps coming.

Can money "buy" authors, reviewers and major indexes all at the same time? if the answer is yes, the reputation of the researcher will be nothing more than the money he will have "invested" in his articles. I mean if the money allows you to publish, if the money allows you to pay reviewers, and if the money allows a journal to get indexed in a very serious database, then research gets closer to business.

Are there any lobby in paid open access?

I think it is the first choice; the journasl that publish open access effectively democratize the knowledge field. Of course it depends on the quality of the platform and the quality of the researchers.

Why are some paid open access journals very expensive?

Happy New Year 2022 to all RG colleagues.

Both.

Tapas Chakrabarty

I like clear and short answers.